Australian Court Rules Mandatory Vaxx as Condition of Employment is NOT Legal - The Great Awakening

713

Australian Court Rules Mandatory Vaxx as Condition of Employment is NOT Legal LET'S GOOoOo

posted 3 years ago by MAG768720 3 years ago by MAG768720 +714 / -1

The case had to do with flu vaxx, but court ruled that a vaxx cannot be required because it violates informed consent.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/U8UwbcENxRy5/

73 comments

73 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (73)

sorted by:

▲ 35 ▼

– anon3030 35 points 3 years ago +35 / -0

Great. Now do USA.

permalink save report block reply

▲ 29 ▼

– 650Thunderbolt 29 points 3 years ago +29 / -0

And Canada.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 20 ▼

– VaccinesCauseSIDS 20 points 3 years ago +20 / -0

And Italy

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 13 ▼

– deleted 13 points 3 years ago +13 / -0

▲ 12 ▼

– Forthelead 12 points 3 years ago +12 / -0

How does informed consent not apply to the testing, which is also a medical procedure?

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 6 ▼

– deleted 6 points 3 years ago +6 / -0

... continue reading thread?

▲ 5 ▼

– CQVFEFE 5 points 3 years ago +5 / -0

I know, right? No one is going to sinus-fuck me with one of those damn vaulting poles with the cotton-and-spike-protein tip.

permalink parent save report block reply

... continue reading thread?

▲ 4 ▼

– TheBRAINz 4 points 3 years ago +4 / -0

FYI - weekly testing is also illegal based on 2015 Federal law that protects a person's "genetic" information. PCR test uses genetic information.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/G-2.5/page-1.html

Prohibitions Marginal note:Genetic test

3 (1) It is prohibited for any person to require an individual to undergo a genetic test as a condition of

(a) providing goods or services to that individual;

(b) entering into or continuing a contract or agreement with that individual; or

(c) offering or continuing specific terms or conditions in a contract or agreement with that individual.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 8 ▼

– ElkStatue 8 points 3 years ago +8 / -0

Even if this doesn't count as legal precedent for other countries, it seems like it would serve as a legal pattern? If this is deemed illegal in Australia, it should be deemed illegal elsewhere for the same reasons?

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 4 ▼

– Nasty_Savage 4 points 3 years ago +4 / -0

I would think that if they are citing ‘informed consent’ that it refers to basic Nuremburg code which is international. I notice they are requiring people in NY to waive informed consent (if you go the testing route), which can be revoked in writing at any time. Its super fishy…

permalink parent save report block reply

To The Great Awakening

We are researchers who deal in open-source information, reasoned argument, and dank memes. We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here. WE ARE THE PUBLIC FACE OF Q. OUR MISSION IS TO RED-PILL NORMIES.

This is a pro-Q community. Please read and respect our rules below before contributing.

WHY Q?

"Those who cannot understand that we cannot simply start arresting w/o first: ensuring the safety & well-being of the population shifting the narrative removing those in DC through resignation to ensure success defeating ISIS/MS13 to prevent fail-safes freezing assets to remove network-to-network abilities kill off COC to prevent top-down comms/org, etc. etc. should not be participating in discussions." Q